Agnostics are the only ones who aren't fools

[Norsefire]

It's true
And then the most foolish are atheist, and then theists



Agnostics acknowledge that they do not know. Atheists make claims that they do, for a fact, as a fact, know. Theists act as if they know but some acknowledge that it is still belief.

[John99]

It's true
And then the most foolish are atheist, and then theists


That sounds about right. The only difference between Atheists and theists are that the theists are generally better organised.

[Enmos]

It's true
And then the most foolish are atheist, and then theists



Agnostics acknowledge that they do not know. Atheists make claims that they do, for a fact, as a fact, know. Theists act as if they know but some acknowledge that it is still belief.

But you know.. don't you ?

[Norsefire]

But you know.. don't you ?

No......

What do you mean?

[spidergoat]

Agnostics are atheists without balls.

[Norsefire]

Agnostics are atheists without balls.

No, they are entirely different. Atheists, without a shred of evidence or logic, make claims and pass them as fact. The same can go with theists, but alot of theists do acknowledge that their beliefs are beliefs, not fact.


Agnostics acknowledge the truth........nobody knows!

[John99]

Atheists are annoying and I sense a lot of inner turmoil coming from them, a struggle within. Even when you come across an intelligent one you just see that they are convincing themselves of something they have no possible way of knowing.

It is amusing though, as long as no one is getting hurt or killed then what harm is there?

[iceaura]

Atheists make claims that they do, for a fact, as a fact, know. I claim to be atheist, based on considered judgment.

That is, I know in the same way I know similar and factual things - overwhelming preponderance of evidence and argument, likelihood by my best judgment.

The way I know the mushrooms I'm about to eat are Morels, and will not kill me.

Not for sure, not proven, but "agnostic" is not the right word for enough confidence to bet one's life.

[spidergoat]

No, they are entirely different. Atheists, without a shred of evidence or logic, make claims and pass them as fact. The same can go with theists, but alot of theists do acknowledge that their beliefs are beliefs, not fact.


Agnostics acknowledge the truth........nobody knows!

You are mistaken about the evidence and the logic. Atheism is based on both. Theists that say their faith isn't fact have no faith.

[John99]

I have never heard a compelling enough argument to acknowledge that Atheism even exists.

For all intents and purposes Atheists are Agnostics who for one reason or another are anti religion.

And what is God? Who is God? If i had the knowledge and ability to create life, cultivate it, give organisms the opportunity to develop and if i can create NEW life forms...Well then I AM GOD. Especially to them.

[Norsefire]

OK, so if you base it on facts........prove to me that no God exists.

You can't!

Sure, you can disprove most religion, because most religion is a product of imagination. But you can NEVER prove that there isn't some sort of intelligent entity. It's a scientific theory, Intelligent Design.



And since I can prove neither, I'd be wise to say that I am agnostic.

[Norsefire]

I have never heard a compelling enough argument to acknowledge that Atheism even exists.

For all intents and purposes Atheists are Agnostics who for one reason or another are anti religion.

And what is God? Who is God? If i had the knowledge and ability to create life, cultivate it give organisms the oppertunity to develop and if i can create NEW life forms...Well then I AM GOD. Especially to them.

Exactly. Atheists, however, get the notion that ANY mention of a Creator automatically has to be your typical angels and devils and heaven ordeal.

[spidergoat]

OK, so if you base it on facts........prove to me that no God exists.

You can't!

Sure, you can disprove most religion, because most religion is a product of imagination. But you can NEVER prove that there isn't some sort of intelligent entity. It's a scientific theory, Intelligent Design.



And since I can prove neither, I'd be wise to say that I am agnostic.

That doesn't mean there isn't evidence to support the view, and logic. Science doesn't always work on proof, it works on probability. There is no proof about what causes gravity either. Only certain areas of math and geometry can show certain proof of relationships.

So, I can show evidence that life arose by the natural process of evolution with no intelligence required. I can show evidence of experiments that show prayer doesn't work. God's attributes cannot exist as they are logically contradictory. Religion doesn't prevent evil, religious people commit as many crimes as the non-religious... more even. You can always concieve of a God that could exist, but it would have no interaction with the physical world, and is thus unworthy of worship. The universe is consistent with natural laws. Nothing supernatural has been shown to exist. Finally, there is no evidence for a God, as there should be if there actually were one.

The same criteria for demonstrating a phenomenon applies to God. Not proof, which is rare in science, but evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. If your criteria is to challenge me to disprove something, there are an infinite number of things that I cannot also disprove (Russel's Teapot), but which would be unreasonable to have complete faith in.

[Norsefire]

Yet by stating that the universe is fine-tuned for life, you can get enough "evidence" or reasoning to show a good probability of intelligent design.

[spidergoat]

It isn't. Scientists have found that many variables would still create a universe very similar to this one if they were varied by 20% or more. There would still be stars and such. Life might still exist, but it could be different than that we find now. There is no evidence that our kind of life is the only kind possible.

In fact, most of the universe isn't somewhere we could live. Most of the universe is empty space.

[John99]

So, I can show evidence that life arose by the natural process of evolution with no intelligence required.

But you cannot do this, no one can. And that is where the delusion comes in. Pure fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism is the belief in absolute authority and the demand that this authority be legally enforced. Often, fundamentalism involves the willingness to do battle for one's faith

[Norsefire]

It isn't. Scientists have found that many variables would still create a universe very similar to this one if they were varied by 20% or more. There would still be stars and such. Life might still exist, but it could be different than that we find now. There is no evidence that our kind of life is the only kind possible.

But regardless, there still needs to be an answer for the beginning of the universe. For the development of it's natural forces. For the creation of mass and energy (which is impossible:confused:), for the regulation and insurance that gravity works as it does and cannot work in another way. There is very good reason to believe in something like Intelligent Design.

[spidergoat]

Evolution proves that complex life can develop with no intelligent guidance at all. Simple computer simulations also prove that simple rules can lead to complex and unpredictable behavior.

[Norsefire]

Evolution proves that complex life can develop with no intelligent guidance at all. Simple computer simulations also prove that simple rules can lead to complex and unpredictable behavior.

But computers needed to be created, allowed, to exist and put into existence by intelligent beings (us).

The question can boil down, not to the development of life, but the creation of existence, of which ONLY the logic of a creator makes sense and even then it doesn't. It's an endless loop, which ultimately suggests that existence is infinite and THAT is just not plausible.

[spidergoat]

But regardless, there still needs to be an answer for the beginning of the universe. For the development of it's natural forces. For the creation of mass and energy (which is impossible:confused:), for the regulation and insurance that gravity works as it does and cannot work in another way. There is very good reason to believe in something like Intelligent Design.

There is room to speculate, but there has yet been no credible fact that shows the universe could not have come about through a natural process. In other words, you are using the God of the gaps argument. You are saying since we don't know everything, that Gap is where God's role comes in.

[spidergoat]

But computers needed to be created, allowed, to exist and put into existence by intelligent beings (us).

The question can boil down, not to the development of life, but the creation of existence, of which ONLY the logic of a creator makes sense and even then it doesn't. It's an endless loop, which ultimately suggests that existence is infinite and THAT is just not plausible.

That's not the point. The simulation does not depend on the computer being complex, as the rules that operate are simple. It can be done on graph paper. Simple rules such as that which can occur in simple non-intelligent systems, can lead to complexity. You don't point to rocks and gasses and say those are proof of God. You used the example of life.

[iceaura]

I have never heard a compelling enough argument to acknowledge that Atheism even exists. Do you then call yourself agnostic with regard to all the gods you don't believe in ?

Seems a petty and misleading distinction. You have no belief in Thor, say - your best judgment is that such a god does not exist. Why would you mislead people into thinking you were undecided in the matter ? Just because you could be wrong does not mean you have in fact significant doubt, true ?

For all intents and purposes Atheists are Agnostics who for one reason or another are anti religion. A certain percentage of Catholic priests are atheist. Many Buddhists and other religion adherents are atheist.

Yet by stating that the universe is fine-tuned for life, you can get enough "evidence" or reasoning to show a good probability of intelligent design. I've never seen that done. I have seen some fairly pathetic attempts.

[spidergoat]

That Atheism exists is self-evident.

[Norsefire]

That's not the point. The simulation does not depend on the computer being complex, as the rules that operate are simple. It can be done on graph paper. Simple rules such as that which can occur in simple non-intelligent systems, can lead to complexity. You don't point to rocks and gasses and say those are proof of God. You used the example of life.

But ultimately how does existence come into existence? That in itself is a difficult question to answer without need to bring in some intelligent presence.

[Norsefire]

There is room to speculate, but there has yet been no credible fact that shows the universe could not have come about through a natural process. In other words, you are using the God of the gaps argument. You are saying since we don't know everything, that Gap is where God's role comes in.

It isn't just about filling some gap of the unknown. It's about filling a gap that has no other possibilities or at least, no other likely possibilities.

[spidergoat]

How did intelligence come into existence? That would be much harder to explain than the spontaneous occurance of positive and negative energy. Subatomic particles seem to do this all the time. Are they doing this because they are smart?

[spidergoat]

It isn't just about filling some gap of the unknown. It's about filling a gap that has no other possibilities or at least, no other likely possibilities.

Ah, but there are no shortage of plausable theories. One must logically first dismiss the naturalistic explanation before something much more unlikely could be considered. Nothing supernatural has been shown to exist, otherwise your argument would be stronger.

[Norsefire]

How did intelligence come into existence? That would be much harder to explain than the spontaneous occurance of positive and negative energy. Subatomic particles seem to do this all the time. Are they doing this because they are smart?

Conciousness. What is it? Our brains are made from carbon and water and all of that........nonliving. So how do nonliving substances create, not only life, but conciousness?



There's enough writing on the wall to suggest that an intelligent presence is at least plausible.

[Norsefire]

Ah, but there are no shortage of plausable theories. One must logically first dismiss the naturalistic explanation before something much more unlikely could be considered. Nothing supernatural has been shown to exist, otherwise your argument would be stronger.

The naturalistic explanation and intelligent design theory have equal weight. Both are as plausible, or implausible, as the other.

[spidergoat]

There is no essential difference between living and non-living. Non-living electronic circuits can store and manipulate information from outside sources, that's what we do only more complex. Consciousness is information.

[spidergoat]

The naturalistic explanation and intelligent design theory have equal weight. Both are as plausible, or implausible, as the other.

Nope. Evolution is much more plausable than creationism. ID has made no predictions reflected in the fossil record.

[John99]

Do you then call yourself agnostic with regard to all the gods you don't believe in ?

Seems a petty and misleading distinction. You have no belief in Thor, say - your best judgment is that such a god does not exist. Why would you mislead people into thinking you were undecided in the matter ? Just because you could be wrong does not mean you have in fact significant doubt, true ?


No, actually i believe in the possibility\probability of higher intelligence. Did this intelligence have any impact on this planet? From what i have seen and understand then the answer is more likely than not.

SG brought up a good analogy with computers, only it does not work in his favour. Without humans computers could not do anything, even if by some miracle they existed they would just take up space w\out human intervention (should say interaction). For all intents and purposes when it comes to computers humans are God.

Only difference is that comps. are not organic life forms, of course this is a huge distinction. Computers cannot think for themselves but then humans certainly have a degree of hard coding as do all living creatures.

[John99]

In this way, we have learned that through computers humans are following in the path of a creator:scratchin: Fascinating. Is this our destiny?

[Norsefire]

Nope. Evolution is much more plausable than creationism. ID has made no predictions reflected in the fossil record.

Creationism in the Abrahamic sense, yes. But not in the sense that intelligent beings might have planted the seeds of life on Earth OR that our evolution was guided by another intelligence.

[cosmictraveler]

A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
~ ~ ~ Douglas Adams



Bigotry murders religion to frighten fools with her ghost.
~ ~ ~ Charles Caleb Colton


The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way.
~ ~ ~ Josh Billings


If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
~ ~ ~ Anatole France



Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain, and most fools do.
~ ~ ~ Benjamin Franklin




We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.
~ ~ ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.



Without fools the rest of us could not succeed.
~ ~ ~ Mark Twain



No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions.
~ ~ ~ Charles Steinmetz

[John99]

Cosmic, did you post in the right thread? See post 32 aND 33.

[spidergoat]

No, actually i believe in the possibility\probability of higher intelligence. Did this intelligence have any impact on this planet? From what i have seen and understand then the answer is more likely than not.

SG brought up a good analogy with computers, only it does not work in his favour. Without humans computers could not do anything, even if by some miracle they existed they would just take up space w\out human intervention (should say interaction). For all intents and purposes when it comes to computers humans are God.

Only difference is that comps. are not organic life forms, of course this is a huge distinction. Computers cannot think for themselves but then humans certainly have a degree of hard coding as do all living creatures.


The point is that a computer simulation uses simple rules, such as that reflected in non-intelligent chemical reactions. Computers are not irreducibly complex. The program consists of simple logic gates. The result can mimic the behavior of living systems. That proves that complexity need not arise from complexity. Complexity can arise from simple rules. Source:

http://www.wolframscience.com/

[Norsefire]

But ultimately someone has to set in motion the existence of anything itself. This is the difficult part that science cannot answer better than religion.

[spidergoat]

Someone? Something is simpler than someone, and thus more likely to precede it in time. Science has a much better track record of explaning things than religion. Science explains more and more, religion less and less. You can no longer claim that atheism isn't based on logic or reason.

[Norsefire]

Someone? Something is simpler than someone, and thus more likely to precede it in time. Science has a much better track record of explaning things than religion. Science explains more and more, religion less and less. You can no longer claim that atheism isn't based on logic or reason.

Atheism might be based on logic, but it is illogical in itself in presuming that it is a known fact that there is no higher intelligence than Humanity. Therefore it is foolish.



Ok but regardless, there is still the question of "how did anything come to be"


If mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did it come to be?

[spidergoat]

How did God come to be? Atheism doesn't say there is no higher intelligence than humanity, assuming intelligence can even be measured. It just says there is no supernatural intelligence that transcends time and natural laws. Once such intelligence has been shown to exist, atheism will no longer be a tenable position. Science could one day discredit atheism, but I kind of doubt it.

[Norsefire]

But what is supernatural?
Think of it this way: if humanity ever is able to create universes, we would be gods, AND transcend the laws and time of that universe.

[spidergoat]

I suppose we would be.

[S.A.M.]

Theism is the position that there is something out there, atheists have stopped looking. Agnostics are just people who can't make up their minds.

[spidergoat]

Atheists haven't stopped investigating the existence of God(s) or the supernatural, it's just that there is as yet no credible reason to believe in it.

[Norsefire]

I suppose we would be.

exactly

[S.A.M.]

Atheists haven't stopped investigating the existence of God(s) or the supernatural, it's just that there is as yet no credible reason to believe in it.

Of course. They believe that nothing happens for a reason, then set out to look for evidence to prove it :rolleyes:

[spidergoat]

exactly
But then Gods occur at the end of an evolutionary process, not at the beginning.

[Norsefire]

SG explain what you mean more. I don't quite understand.

[S.A.M.]

He's confusing religion and evolution. Its a common misconception in atheists that the two overlap.

[spidergoat]

SG explain what you mean more. I don't quite understand.

If humans attain great powers over time and space, it doesn't support creationism, since it came at the end of a long period of development, from the simpler to the more complex. Unless we go back in time and create ourselves.

[Norsefire]

If humans attain great powers over time and space, it doesn't support creationism, since it came at the end of a long period of development, from the simpler to the more complex. Unless we go back in time and create ourselves.

Nobody ever said this/these intelligent creator(s) coldn't have come at the end of a long period of development

[spidergoat]

As far as we know, the early universe was not hospitable to atoms, much less anything complex.

[S.A.M.]

A beginning and an end is an artificial construct.

[Norsefire]

As far as we know, the early universe was not hospitable to atoms, much less anything complex.

But, in the same way we would've created a universe would have us outside of that created universe, a creator could be external.

[iceaura]

Do you then call yourself agnostic with regard to all the gods you don't believe in ?
- - -
No, actually i believe in the possibility\probability of higher intelligence. That doesn't answer the question.

You disparage claims to atheism on some grounds not yet clear. We are really agnostics who especially dislike religion, you claim. This seem wrong to me, about me for example, but that depends - now, are you agnostic with regard to Thor, the Norse God of Thunder ?
He's confusing religion and evolution. Its a common misconception in atheists that the two overlap. You need to reread - you've taken something wrong.
Maybe this: Of course. They believe that nothing happens for a reason, then set out to look for evidence to prove it Almost the exact opposite of the common state of affairs. A beginning and an end is an artificial construct. No more so than a reason. Beginning and end of what ?

[S.A.M.]

That doesn't answer the question.

You disparage claims to atheism on some grounds not yet clear. We are really agnostics who especially dislike religion, you claim. This seem wrong to me, about me for example, but that depends - now, are you agnostic with regard to Thor, the Norse God of Thunder ?
You need to reread - you've taken something wrong.
Maybe this: Almost the exact opposite of the common state of affairs. No more so than a reason. Beginning and end of what ?

I've already answered ad nauseum about Thor and all the other representations of God; its now a dull strawman which bores me.

From where I stand, atheists are cognitively dissonant. They create artificial constructs to model reality and then confuse the model for reality.

[iceaura]

I've already answered ad nauseum about Thor and all the other representations of God; its now a dull strawman which bores me. It wasn't asked of you. It is not a strawman in John's case - it is central to his apparent argument that actual atheism doesn't exist.

From where I stand, atheists are cognitively dissonant. They create artificial constructs to model reality and then confuse the model for reality. That isn't cognitive dissonance.

And the statement seems confused about perceived reality - apparently deities are to be taken as "natural" ? They are not human constructs ?

[S.A.M.]

And the statement seems confused about perceived reality - apparently deities are to be taken as "natural" ? They are not human constructs ?

Of course not, I don't know anyone who thinks a deity is God, rather all deities are representations of an aspect of God.

[siledre]

I disagree, fools are everywhere.

[iceaura]

So we agree that deities are human contructs, models of reality not to be mistaken for the real thing.

[spidergoat]

But, in the same way we would've created a universe would have us outside of that created universe, a creator could be external.

Alot of speculation, it could be, but in the absence of anything suggesting that, the simpler explanation is more likely to be true. A creator is necessarily complex, that is the attribute of intelligence and consciousness. Such a thing is an unnecessarily byzantine story when what we are talking about are forces on a subatomic scale, the nature of space, matter and energy.

[Prince_James]

If God is a necessary being, then he is falsifiable by reason alone, or provable by reason alone. As such, agnosticism is false.

[S.A.M.]

So we agree that deities are human contructs, models of reality not to be mistaken for the real thing.

Of course, are you of the impression that anyone considers them to be anything but? Did you for instance believe that every Christian believed the Jesus deity in his church was the real Jesus?

[iceaura]

Of course, are you of the impression that anyone considers them to be anything but? Did you for instance believe that every Christian believed the Jesus deity in his church was the real Jesus? You lost me there.

Are we agreed that deities - such as Jesus, or Allah, or Yahweh, - are artificial human constructs, models, not to be confused with reality ?

[Prince_James]

Iceaura:

Sam is a devout Moslem. She believes Allah is real.

[S.A.M.]

You lost me there.

Are we agreed that deities - such as Jesus, or Allah, or Yahweh, - are artificial human constructs, models, not to be confused with reality ?

Hmm perhaps you appear to be confused by the fact that people understand God based on their ability to conceive of divinity. But like anything else, what you think it is has no effect on what it is, or the fact that your understanding of it will change with knowledge.

[shaman_]

It's true
And then the most foolish are atheist, and then theists



Agnostics acknowledge that they do not know. Atheists make claims that they do, for a fact, as a fact, know. Theists act as if they know but some acknowledge that it is still belief.Actually atheists don't have to make any claims and they certainly don't have to 'know' anything.

Theists seem very keen to redefine strong atheism as atheism. It's very hard to attack atheism otherwise.

Agnosticism is pertaining to knowledge, not belief, and is compatible with both theism and atheism. Is an agnostic atheist foolish?

[iceaura]

Hmm perhaps you appear to be confused by the fact that people understand God based on their ability to conceive of divinity. Nothing confusing about that.

Now about the question - for a minute there we were talking about models vs realities, and we seemed to have reached an agreement on the nature of the model deities involved - namely, that they were human constructs, and that should be kept in mind. Is that so ?

[S.A.M.]

Nothing confusing about that.

Now about the question - for a minute there we were talking about models vs realities, and we seemed to have reached an agreement on the nature of the model deities involved - namely, that they were human constructs, and that should be kept in mind. Is that so ?

All reality is a human construct. Is there anything that isn't?

[John99]

Someone here should read the thread title a little closer. ^

[iceaura]

From where I stand, atheists are cognitively dissonant. They create artificial constructs to model reality and then confuse the model for reality.
- - -
All reality is a human construct. Is there anything that isn't? So dismissign the "cognitive dissonance" as buzzword not applicable, and noting that "human constructed" and "artificial" interchange in this context, is there anything left here ?

[John99]

That doesn't answer the question.

You disparage claims to atheism on some grounds not yet clear. We are really agnostics who especially dislike religion, you claim. This seem wrong to me, about me for example, but that depends - now, are you agnostic with regard to Thor, the Norse God of Thunder ?


I think that if it were not for religion and all it encompasses then we would not have Atheism. As far as Thor and other ancient Gods, why should i believe them?

Obviously i am not an Atheist. To me it is very limiting and how can i ever say that there is no other life after this life?

Isnt life itself a miracle?

Why are we here?

For what purpose are there humans?

You will never see another species build a space shuttle.

You will never see another species perform surgery.

You will never see another species do this -

http://www.spicyexpress.net/shirish/paint1.jpg

http://www.vermeersriddlerevealed.com/images/the_lacemaker/VELAZQUEZ-MENI-crop-as-ptd.jpg

At least not on theis planet.

[codanblad]

the definition i found said atheism was a belief, so atheists don't need facts.

if atheism is refuting existence of God, then can't it come down to the atheist in question's personal definition of God? is it then possible to provide proofs of the non existence of a defined entity? such as that if whatever entity is not directly influencing the universe, he is not worthy of the title, and is some kind of lesser being? does that work?

[John99]

I have nothing against Atheists nor do i care but just suppose there was an afterlife will you say a cannot go because i am an Atheist?

If you take the word God out of it then isnt that what it really means to be an Atheist? I am not sure because TBH i dont quite understand it. There are lots of things that are hard to believe but true.

[John99]

if atheism is refuting existence of God, then can't it come down to the atheist in question's personal definition of God? is it then possible to provide proofs of the non existence of a defined entity? such as that if whatever entity is not directly influencing the universe, he is not worthy of the title, and is some kind of lesser being? does that work?

But we have not fully defined God. Do we say- God is the designer of life\new species from conception to a workable model? If It could do that then i guess that qualifies.

[Cris]

Norsefire,

Agnostics acknowledge that they do not know. So an agnostic is one without theistic belief. That’s the same as an atheist.

Atheists make claims that they do, for a fact, as a fact, know.No they don’t. They argue on the points of absence of evidence and lack of credibility.

Theists act as if they know but some acknowledge that it is still belief.There is no difference. One that holds a belief is one who holds a conviction that something is true. That's what it measn to believe something.

[Sarkus]

Agnostics acknowledge that they do not know. Atheists make claims that they do, for a fact, as a fact, know. Theists act as if they know but some acknowledge that it is still belief.
You are confusing stances on epistemology (agnosticism) and belief in God (theism/atheism).

Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism.

You are also giving an inaccurate position on atheism - which is merely the absence of the belief that God exists.

Theists have this belief: i.e. "I believe God exists".
Atheists are all those who are not theists.
Some go as far as to say "I believe God does not exist" but many, such as myself, merely do not have the theistic belief.


I am an agnostic atheist - I acknoweldge I do not know if God exists or not (no evidence to rationally support his existence, and you can not prove a negative) but I am not going to have a belief that he does - as there is no evidence.

My brother is an agnostic theist - he acknowledges he does not know, but still believes anyway.

So your OP is flawed as you seem to misunderstand the terms you use.

[Enmos]

No......

What do you mean?

I thought you were Muslim ?

[Norsefire]

I'm agnostic...




The point is, many atheists seem to always say "there is no God". This is foolish. This is a prime example of atheists making assumptions and passing them as fact. The truth is, nobody knows. So this pretty much automatically makes most atheists, and theists, fools.

However, for the "agnostic atheist" that some of you are describing, that is a difference.


So we move on to probability. What is the probability that there is a big guy in the sky guarding pearly gates?

Unlikely. It is understandable why most people would not believe in that or think the notion of God is ridiculous based on that.

However, most religion IS imagination. To be specific, the specifics. Centuries of cultural and civil impact shape the way people view a Creator. Specifics arise, details, and then this religion becomes nothing more than a product of imagination.


However, if you want to take a scientific approach on the concept of a Creator, that is, to say that "there may be an intelligent entity which may have either caused or affected the development of our universe", it becomes plausible.

Religions only give face and identity to this "Creator", but they are largely false.

However, if you take that core concept, not only does it become plausible, but it becomes just as likely or unlikely as, say, the big bang.

[spidergoat]

It's not plausable, for scientific reasons. It's at best an hypothesis with as yet no evidentiary support. When atheists say there's no God, they mean the probability is so close to zero, that one can say such a thing with a high degree of confidence. Just like disease cannot be explained as an imbalance of the basic elements of fire, water, earth, and air. The early universe is know known to have been a place of extreme entropy, where no complex structure could exist. No supernatural thing exists. It's part of science to withhold absolute judgement on things, but that doesn't mean to ignore what we do know.

[Prince_James]

Spidergoat:

The early universe is know known to have been a place of extreme entropy, where no complex structure could exist.

This is incorrect. The early universe was the lowest state of entropy ever experienced in the history of the universe. Entropy increases with time.

[spidergoat]

The initial entropy of the universe was also as large as it could have been, since it was also the entropy of a black hole. Thus, the universe has maximum entropy at the two extremes on the time axis. In each case, the universe is in equilibrium. At each time, the universe is in a static state of total chaos...

Victor Stenger

[spidergoat]

In any case, complexity and organization could only exist after the universe cooled. If there was a God, all traces of it were lost during the big bang.

[Prince_James]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE441.html

This claims that entropy was minimal during the Big Bang as a response to creationist claims of "explosions not causing information".

[spidergoat]

If the universe expanded until every particle were evenly far apart, would that be order or disorder?

[Zephyr]

If the universe expanded until every particle were evenly far apart, would that be order or disorder?

That is high entropy.

Entropy is well defined. Order, disorder and complexity are not in general (unless you specify a particular type, e.g. Kolmogorov complexity and all the associated encodings).

[Norsefire]

Why is that not plausible SG? One could argue that it IS plausible in that we even exist, thus leading to the theory that intelligence is required to create such complexity. Yes, the universe IS complicated, at least, too much imo to be natural.

[Sarkus]

However, if you want to take a scientific approach on the concept of a Creator, that is, to say that "there may be an intelligent entity which may have either caused or affected the development of our universe", it becomes plausible.

Religions only give face and identity to this "Creator", but they are largely false.

However, if you take that core concept, not only does it become plausible, but it becomes just as likely or unlikely as, say, the big bang.
Not true. You are comparing apples and elephants.
Such ideas as the "Big Bang" are all internal to the Universe - i.e. we are inside, and we can only ever take things back to t = 0 in our investigations.

The ideas of a "Creator" are necessarily outside the Universe and thus entirely and absolutely beyond investigation, making them, if nothing else, an irrelevancy.

Further the problem with your "it becomes plausible" statement is that it is as equally as plausible as an infinite other "possibilities" that lie outside of investigation.


And anything that lies absolutely outside of investigation is logically consistent with something that doesn't exist.

[Enmos]

I'm agnostic...




The point is, many atheists seem to always say "there is no God". This is foolish. This is a prime example of atheists making assumptions and passing them as fact. The truth is, nobody knows. So this pretty much automatically makes most atheists, and theists, fools.

It's a pretty safe assumption.
About as safe an assumption as saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

On the other hand, it IS foolish to assume the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist without any evidence of it whatsoever.

[S.A.M.]

Its evolutionarily unsupportable to have an assumption like that. You cannot assume things are not, only that they are :p

[Enmos]

Its evolutionarily unsupportable to have an assumption like that. You cannot assume things are not, only that they are :p

Exactly :p

[S.A.M.]

On the other hand, it IS foolish to assume the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist without any evidence of it whatsoever.

Hmm so you make assumptions based on evidence?:confused:

Do you know what an assumption is?

[Enmos]

Hmm so you make assumptions based on evidence?:confused:

Do you know what an assumption is?

Ok, wrong choice of words.

Although, assumptions usually are based on some evidence, even if it's only by experience.

[S.A.M.]

Ok, wrong choice of words.

Although, assumptions usually are based on some evidence, even if it's only by experience.

Not at all. An assumption is held to be true, regardless of whether it is or not. Even in logic, its an expectation that one holds which one expects to eventually have come true.

[Enmos]

Not at all. An assumption is held to be true, regardless of whether it is or not. Even in logic, its an expectation that one holds which one expects to eventually have come true.

In order to expect it true, there must be some evidence of the validity of the assumption.

[S.A.M.]

No, there is no basis attached to any assumption. That is why its called an assumption. If there was any validity to it, it would be called a fact.

[Enmos]

No, there is no basis attached to any assumption. That is why its called an assumption. If there was any validity to it, it would be called a fact.

A fact is supported by enough evidence to be certain about it's validity.
An assumption (to me) is somewhere halfway between no evidence at all and a fact.

The definition of assumption you propose (ok the dictionary probably) is completely unworkable.
No one in their right mind ever makes an assumption defined like that.

[S.A.M.]

A fact is supported by enough evidence to be certain about it's validity.
An assumption (to me) is somewhere halfway between no evidence at all and a fact.

The definition of assumption you propose (ok the dictionary probably) is completely unworkable.
No one in their right mind ever makes an assumption defined like that.

You may be limited by evidence in your ability to make assumptions. But usually, you make assumptions when there are no facts in evidence.

[Prince_James]

Spidergoat:

If the universe expanded until every particle were evenly far apart, would that be order or disorder?

Disorder as described in entropic terms.

[Enmos]

You may be limited by evidence in your ability to make assumptions. But usually, you make assumptions when there are no facts in evidence.

Are you saying assumptions are based on nothing at all ?

[JDawg]

Why is that not plausible SG? One could argue that it IS plausible in that we even exist, thus leading to the theory that intelligence is required to create such complexity. Yes, the universe IS complicated, at least, too much imo to be natural.

This is what I don't get about theists. Not to knock you on your faith, because I could care less if you're religious. I don't hold it against you, is what I'm driving at. Anyway, what I don't understand is where anyone gets the idea that the universe is too complex to have happened naturally.

On what grounds do you base that assumption? Have you seen a universe that hasn't been created by a god? Have you seen one that has? You can't answer either of those, because you don't know. You can say you believe that God created all of this, but please, and I'm really serious here, don't try to argue science, because you'll never win. Don't say that the universe is too complex to have happened naturally, because you have no frame of reference. You can't say "This one was created, this one happened on its own, see the difference?"

The most anyone can say about the ultimate creation of the universe is that they don't know. That's all there is to it. There is no other answer. If you want to believe it was created, then point to the Bible, or the Koran, or to whatever holy book gave you the idea in the first place.

[phlogistician]

It's true
And then the most foolish are atheist, and then theists



Agnostics acknowledge that they do not know. Atheists make claims that they do, for a fact, as a fact, know. Theists act as if they know but some acknowledge that it is still belief.


Why can't you theists understand the simple definition of 'atheist'.

It's simple. Someone who doesn't believe in god. They make no claims. They just do not believe in your god.

Agnostics are atheists too, if you took a poll, and asked

"Do you believe in God'

A: Yes
B: No
C: Don't know.

Theists are people who answered 'A'. Everybody else is NOT a theist. Simple way to say that, is 'atheist'. Agnostics are atheists, it's just they are too pansy to admit it, and want to avoid conflict with theists, so apologise for their atheism by labelling themselves as agnostic.

[codanblad]

Why can't you theists understand the simple definition of 'atheist'.

It's simple. Someone who doesn't believe in god. They make no claims. They just do not believe in your god. Simple way to say that, is 'atheist'. Agnostics are atheists, it's just they are too pansy to admit it, and want to avoid conflict with theists, so apologise for their atheism by labelling themselves as agnostic.

i agree, i take atheist to mean 'not theist', i don't think it should mean 'possesses hard evidence which disproves all religion'. i think perhaps those connotations have come about by theists exaggerating the stance of non-theists, and finding reasons to vilify them. that and atheists saying that god doesn't exist.

[S.A.M.]

How is don't know the same as no?

If I don't know, its not the same as rejecting a concept; you cannot reject what you don't know. Are ants atheist?

[Enmos]

How is don't know the same as no?

If I don't know, its not the same as rejecting a concept; you cannot reject what you don't know. Are ants atheist?

Yes, they don't believe in any deity. This makes them atheists (without god).

:p

[S.A.M.]

Yes, they don't believe in any deity. This makes them atheists (without god).

:p

How do you know what ants believe?

[iceaura]

No, there is no basis attached to any assumption. That is why its called an assumption. If there was any validity to it, it would be called a fact. And no argument at all is possible involving uncertainties, for which there is some but not adequate evidence ? Or is there some way of arguing and debating and exploring such matters that does not involve assumptions ?

Yes, they don't believe in any deity. hmmmm. I wonder. They have a remarkable propensity for martyrdom, etc, and the strong sense of community and family values and so forth we are informed are the benefits of theism (such strong benefits that they actually argue for the validity of theistic belief).

Bees were traditionally formal exemplars of Christian belief and life, until it was discovered that they were ruled by a female - let's say ants exemplify Islam: isn't a deity implied ?

Meanwhile,the point stands: ants could be either atheist or theist, without having intellectually formulated the other possibility.

[Enmos]

How do you know what ants believe?

I hope that isn't a serious question :rolleyes:

[S.A.M.]

And no argument at all is possible involving uncertainties, for which there is some but not adequate evidence ? Or is there some way of arguing and debating and exploring such matters that does not involve assumptions ?

Does one make assumptions about uncertainties based on facts?


Bees were traditionally formal exemplars of Christian belief and life, until it was discovered that they were ruled by a female - let's say ants exemplify Islam: isn't a deity implied ?

Absolutely.

[Enmos]

:wallbang:

[Norsefire]

I am not a theist! I am AGNOSTIC; why would I be calling myself a fool?



The universe is at it is. Regardless of whether or not it is too complex to be natural, there is still the question of how it came to exist, and that is a question which is extremely difficult to answer. In this question, both the answers of natural occurence and intelligent design are equally plausable. Therefore, there is little reason to automatically assume that there is not, or that there is, a creator, when both concepts have equal weight.

[EndLightEnd]

Im an atheist because I dont believe in any earth based humanized gods. Whether there is a higher conscious power behind our creation is beyond my knowledge.

I guess im a weird agnostic.

[JDawg]

In this question, both the answers of natural occurence and intelligent design are equally plausable.

Wrong again. We have evidence that simple life can evolve into complex life through natural selection. We have no evidence that there was a designer. So no, both are not equally plausible. We don't know that a deity is plausible at all, because there is no evidence for one. All we know is that traditional theistic explanations, and the arguments that arise from them (life is too complex to be natural), are bogus. So far, all the evidence points to life occurring naturally.

[Norsefire]

Wrong again. We have evidence that simple life can evolve into complex life through natural selection. We have no evidence that there was a designer. So no, both are not equally plausible. We don't know that a deity is plausible at all, because there is no evidence for one. All we know is that traditional theistic explanations, and the arguments that arise from them (life is too complex to be natural), are bogus. So far, all the evidence points to life occurring naturally.

You're about 13.7 billion years ahead of me.


Firstly, understand that by "Creator" I do not give face to the word; I am not speaking from any particular religious view, and in fact I am attempting to be as blunt and as basic as possible: an intelligent entity. Specifics out of religion are imagination.

And yes, both are equally plausable. This has nothing to do with life evolving on Earth or complex or simple or what not. It has to do with the ORIGIN of it all. Life can be natural on Earth, that isn't the point. It probably is. The point is, the entire universe and it's origins......and for this, intelligent design (of the universe) and natural occurence hold equal weight in that neither has any sort of exclusive evidence.

[JDawg]

...we're having this debate in two threads...I just noticed that...

This has nothing to do with life evolving on Earth or complex or simple or what not. It has to do with the ORIGIN of it all.

Ah, see, but it has everything to do with it. You're putting a supernatural start to a natural occurrence. If everything within the universe is natural, why assume that anythng outside of the universe isn't? All the evidence says that existence is natural in it's mechanics...so why would the mechanics of the BB be any different?

[S.A.M.]

Whats a "natural" occurrence? Something that you take for granted has no cause or design?

Like a tree sprouting from a seed?

[JDawg]

Whats a "natural" occurrence? Something that you take for granted has no cause or design?

Like a tree sprouting from a seed?

I'm just going to call you Troll from now on, OK? OK.

See, Troll, you say I'm taking it for granted, but I say you're delusional to believe that there even needs to be a creator. You can't argue complexity because you don't know that complexity requires design to begin with. No, the root of all of your pseudo-logic stems from the fairy tales you read in your particular Holy Book.

[S.A.M.]

I'm just going to call you Troll from now on, OK? OK.

See, Troll, you say I'm taking it for granted, but I say you're delusional to believe that there even needs to be a creator. You can't argue complexity because you don't know that complexity requires design to begin with. No, the root of all of your pseudo-logic stems from the fairy tales you read in your particular Holy Book.

You're attributing to me arguments I haven't made.

I asked you a question. What is natural?

If you don't know, just say you don't know. There's no need to get childish about it. :)

[Norsefire]

...we're having this debate in two threads...I just noticed that...



Ah, see, but it has everything to do with it. You're putting a supernatural start to a natural occurrence. If everything within the universe is natural, why assume that anythng outside of the universe isn't? All the evidence says that existence is natural in it's mechanics...so why would the mechanics of the BB be any different?

Listen to what you're saying: it's illogical. Firstly, the big bang is the occurence, but what sparked it? That's the point where natural causes or intelligent design are both equally plausable.

Furthermore, the natural laws of the universe would likely be created along with the universe, therefore there is no guarantee that anything outside of the universe would follow the same rules. Many physicists say that time started at the creation of the universe, thus making it nonexistent outside of our universe.

It's not so much about the mechanics of the universe or even the big bang, but rather the origin of those mechanics.

[Enmos]

I am not a theist! I am AGNOSTIC; why would I be calling myself a fool?
Ok, you already said that..

The universe is at it is. Regardless of whether or not it is too complex to be natural, there is still the question of how it came to exist, and that is a question which is extremely difficult to answer. In this question, both the answers of natural occurence and intelligent design are equally plausable. Therefore, there is little reason to automatically assume that there is not, or that there is, a creator, when both concepts have equal weight.
See this is where it goes wrong..
How can you say both theories have equal weight ?
How can you say intelligent design is AS plausible as evolution ?
You could only do so if God is a given fact.

[JDawg]

I asked you a question. What is natural?

Everything.

Listen to what you're saying: it's illogical. Firstly, the big bang is the occurence, but what sparked it? That's the point where natural causes or intelligent design are both equally plausable.

Wait, what I'm saying is illogical?? Seriously? Dude, you're trying to say that there's a 50/50 chance some supernatural deity created the universe! Give me a break. OK, no, let's get real about this: The only reason you give them equal weight is because you have heard of man-made creation myths. If not for those entirely man-made creation myths, you wouldn't be spouting this nonsense.

Furthermore, the natural laws of the universe would likely be created along with the universe, therefore there is no guarantee that anything outside of the universe would follow the same rules. Many physicists say that time started at the creation of the universe, thus making it nonexistent outside of our universe.

Another leap of faith. Just because our time didn't exist before our universe did, does not in any way imply that time itself did not exist outside of all of this. We just don't know. But even so, that's not my problem here. My problem is you calling in a creator when we have no evidence whatsoever of anything supernatural anywhere, in any process, regarding anything about this universe. Dude, face it, you're saying it because you think you have to. But you don't. God is totally implausible.

[John99]

You are not taking into account the full meaning of supernatural-


According to the strict materialist view, if something "supernatural" exists, it is by definition not supernatural. Are there forces beyond the natural forces studied by physics? Are there ways of sensing that go beyond our biological senses and instruments? Certainly there may always be things outside of the realm of human understanding, as of yet unconfirmed and dubious in existence, and some might term these "supernatural".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

[JDawg]

According to the strict materialist view, if something "supernatural" exists, it is by definition not supernatural

That's as wrong as it gets.

[John99]

Makes sense to me.

[Enmos]

That's as wrong as it gets.

No it's correct.
Supernatural is something not in existence, so if it exist it's not supernatural; it's natural.

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Agnostics acknowledge that they do not know. Atheists make claims that they do, for a fact, as a fact, know. Theists act as if they know but some acknowledge that it is still belief.

I can't agree with this as I'm Atheist but, when I was a child I believed in god as I did in Santa(etc).

I am Atheist because of lack of consistancy in history regarding deities and lack of logical proof to the contrary. If someone came up with evidence indicating that any deities exist then I'm sure most Atheist's non-belief in deities would change too...

Theist's make the claim of an entities existance which Atheist's don't agree with (im my case anyway)

[phlogistician]

How is don't know the same as no?

If I don't know, its not the same as rejecting a concept; you cannot reject what you don't know. Are ants atheist?

Atheist simply means not being in the pro camp. Agnostics are not in pro camp, so they are atheists.

You don't have to 'reject a concept' to be an atheist either. You are still an atheist if you had never heard about god.

It's really that simple, and perhaps you should stop wantonly adding baggage to the term 'atheist' it makes you theists look desperate.

[S.A.M.]

Atheist simply means not being in the pro camp. Agnostics are not in pro camp, so they are atheists.

You don't have to 'reject a concept' to be an atheist either. You are still an atheist if you had never heard about god.

It's really that simple, and perhaps you should stop wantonly adding baggage to the term 'atheist' it makes you theists look desperate.

So you're saying that if you take a vote, ayes and nays and one guy says I dissent, its a nay? Not where I come from. We don't assign new meanings to established ideas.

[Randwolf]

So you're saying that if you take a vote, ayes and nays and one guy says I dissent, its a nay? Not where I come from. We don't assign new meanings to established ideas.

No, it's not a nay, but it's also not an aye.

My understanding of atheism is that it represents the set of all "not-theists", akin to the set of "not-ayes", including the dissenter, in your analogy. Perhaps we have a problem with semantics?

[S.A.M.]

No, it's not a nay, but it's also not an aye.

My understanding of atheism is that it represents the set of all "not-theists", akin to the set of "not-ayes", including the dissenter, in your analogy. Perhaps we have a problem with semantics?

Based on what?
Please read this and tell me what is your opinion of it:

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

[(Q)]

OK, so if you base it on facts........prove to me that no God exists.

You can't!

Sure, you can disprove most religion, because most religion is a product of imagination. But you can NEVER prove that there isn't some sort of intelligent entity. It's a scientific theory, Intelligent Design.

Prove to me that no *enter name or description of any invisible, non-detectable entity or fairyland creature* exists.

That's your argument? Weak, at best.

[S.A.M.]

Prove to me that no *enter name or description of any invisible, non-detectable entity or fairyland creature* exists.

That's your argument? Weak, at best.

Not really, before the x-ray was invented you would apply it to radiation.

[Randwolf]

American Heritage Dictionary
a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

It seems that definition #1 is in agreement with my view.
It seems that definition #2 is in agreement with your view.

As I said, it seems to be a matter of semantics.

Is disbelief the same as denial?

[S.A.M.]

American Heritage Dictionary
a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

It seems that definition #1 is in agreement with my view.
It seems that definition #2 is in agreement with your view.

As I said, it seems to be a matter of semantics.

Is disbelief the same as denial?

Can you deny something about which you do not know anything?

Or rather, do you?

[(Q)]

Not really, before the x-ray was invented you would apply it to radiation.

No, really, it's a weak argument, if an argument at all.

[S.A.M.]

No, really, it's a weak argument, if an argument at all.

Not to anyone who does not know but believes there is something there that he should be looking for. Its the basis of all discovery and invention in the world, at any rate.

[Randwolf]

Can you deny something about which you do not know anything?

Or rather, do you?

Personally, I consider myself atheist.

For me that breaks down like this:
Religion seems to treat God as unknowable, even the true name of God is unknowable.

If by definition a concept is unknowable, than I can not believe or disbelieve in this concept, for it is unknowable.

If I can not believe or disbelieve, than I certainly do not believe.

If I do not believe, than I am atheist.

But, is the exact label really pertinent to the underlying belief?

[S.A.M.]

Personally, I consider myself atheist.

For me that breaks down like this:
Religion seems to treat God as unknowable, even the true name of God is unknowable.

If by definition a concept is unknowable, than I can not believe or disbelieve in this concept, for it is unknowable.

If I can not believe or disbelieve, than I certainly do not believe.

If I do not believe, than I am atheist.

But, is the exact label really pertinent to the underlying belief?

I think so.

I have never met an agnostic [self defined] who considers himself an atheist. Have you?

[Randwolf]

I think so.

I have never met an agnostic [self defined] who considers himself an atheist. Have you?

Yes, actually. Me for one. As I described. I do not believe nor disbelieve, both are logically impossible. (For me)

Since "I do not believe nor disbelieve" that makes me an agnostic, but agnosticism is a subset of atheism. It's just a matter of definitions here.

The substantive belief (or lack thereof) doesn't change, no matter what label you assign.

[S.A.M.]

Yes, actually. Me for one. As I described. I do not believe nor disbelieve, both are logically impossible. (For me)

Since "I do not believe nor disbelieve" that makes me an agnostic, but agnosticism is a subset of atheism. It's just a matter of definitions here.

The substantive belief (or lack thereof) doesn't change, no matter what label you assign.

You sound more like an ignostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

[Enmos]

"An explicit atheist has made an assertion regarding belief in gods; such an individual may eschew belief in gods (weak atheism), or affirm that gods do not exist (strong atheism)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism


Randwolf, I agree.

[S.A.M.]

Weak atheism is an anomaly. How do you disbelieve in a concept that you do not acknowledge?

[(Q)]

Not to anyone who does not know but believes there is something there that he should be looking for. Its the basis of all discovery and invention in the world, at any rate.

No, Sam, it's a very weak argument, as is yours.

[Randwolf]

You sound more like an ignostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Fine.

From your wikipedia article:
"Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism."

You really like the whole "pigeon-holing" approach. How far would you like to break this down?

Do you understand the concept of subsets?

[Enmos]

Weak atheism is an anomaly. How do you disbelieve in a concept that you do not acknowledge?

You do have problems, don't you ? Jesus.. :bugeye:

[S.A.M.]

Fine.

From your wikipedia article:
"Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism."

You really like the whole "pigeon-holing" approach. How far would you like to break this down?

Do you understand the concept of subsets?

Like the evilbible.com article says, I do not like redundant redefinitions which reduce clarity of meaning.

According to me, a theist is someone who believes in at least one God, an atheist is someone who rejects any notion of a theistic God, an agnostic is one who has no opinion on whether or not there is a God.

All further subsets [weak atheism, ignosticism etc] are redundancies. I do not believe one can reject a concept one does not acknowledge. If I were to ask you about the concept of jihad and whether you believed in it, what would be your response? For example.

[Randwolf]

Like the evilbible.com article says, I do not like redundant redefinitions which reduce clarity of meaning.
I agree.



According to me, a theist is someone who believes in at least one God, an atheist is someone who rejects any notion of a theistic God, an agnostic is one who has no opinion on whether or not there is a God.
According to you.



All further subsets [weak atheism, ignosticism etc] are redundancies.
My point, indeed. Why then were you so quick to dig up and apply "ignosticism" From Wikipedia?

It seems like you are contradicting yourself.


Oh, and are you asking me about jihad? If so, in what sense are we using the word "believe"? Do I believe that others believe that the concept of jihad exists and is worthy? Of course...

[S.A.M.]

I agree.



According to you.



My point, indeed. Why then were you so quick to dig up and apply "ignosticism" From Wikipedia?

It seems like you are contradicting yourself.

No, I'm addressing yours


Oh, and are you asking me about jihad? If so, in what sense are we using the word "believe"?

Its a concept and you claim it is possible to have a stance on a concept you do not acknowledge. Prove your stance. Do you believe in jihad?

[Enmos]

SAM do you acknowledge the concept of perpetual motion machines ?
If so, do you believe in their existence ?

[Randwolf]

Its a concept [jihad] and you claim it is possible to have a stance on a concept you do not acknowledge. Prove your stance. Do you believe in jihad?

I asked you to clarify the context of the word "believe". If by "believe in" you are saying advocate, the answer is no, obviously.

If you are asking if I believe the concept exists, yes.

ji·had /dʒɪˈhɑd/
–noun
1. a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
2. any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle.

Definition #2 seems self evident.

Definition #1 certainly exists and is a valid concept for at least some Muslims.


Do you have to "believe" in ghosts to understand the concept?

[S.A.M.]

I asked you to clarify the context of the word "believe". If by "believe in" you are saying advocate, the answer is no, obviously.


But you are the one claiming that one need not acknowledge or "know" a concept before denying it. Go ahead. Do you believe in jihad?

SAM do you acknowledge the concept of perpetual motion machines ?
If so, do you believe in their existence ?

Do you believe in the existence of *&%$@?

[Enmos]

Do you believe in the existence of marasim?

Too much trouble to just answer the question ?

[S.A.M.]

Too much trouble to just answer the question ?

I changed it. Try the edited question. I am curious to know how one denies a concept that one does not acknowledge.

[Enmos]

Hmm since to sneakily deleted 'marasim' I looked up what it meant.
Apparently it means 'relations'.. :confused:

[Enmos]

I changed it. Try the edited question. I am curious to know how one denies a concept that one does not acknowledge.

Can you answer the question or not ?

[S.A.M.]

As soon as I figure out how one denies a concept that is declared as neither believe in and not believe in.

Hmm since to sneakily deleted 'marasim' I looked up what it meant.
Apparently it means 'relations'.. :confused:

Yeah, I did not want to give you one that you could find the meaning of. Since that would make it a known concept. :p

[Enmos]

As soon as I figure out how one denies a concept that is declared as neither believe in and not believe in.

What are you on about ? I do not believe in God.
I acknowledge the concept of God, but I do not believe in his existence.

Answer the questions in post 150.

"SAM do you acknowledge the concept of perpetual motion machines ?
If so, do you believe in their existence ?"

[S.A.M.]

What are you on about ? I do not believe in God.

Answer the questions in post 150.

"SAM do you acknowledge the concept of perpetual motion machines ?
If so, do you believe in their existence ?"

I have no concept of it and no knowledge of it. How can I believe or not believe in something I don't know? I have no opinion either way.:shrug:

[Enmos]

I have no concept of it and no knowledge of it. How can I believe or not believe in something I don't know? I have no opinion either way.:shrug:

Then you are agnostic to perpetual motion machines. (<-- see ? agnostic..)
However you are lying. You know perfectly well what perpetual motion machines are.

[S.A.M.]

Then you are agnostic to perpetual motion machines. (<-- see ? agnostic..)
However you are lying. You know perfectly well what perpetual motion machines are.

No I am not agnostic to them. I am illiterate or ignorant of them. I do not oppose the notion that there is an ultimate reality of perpetual motion machines. I am sure there is knowledge out there that I could gain to form an opinion. Its not unknowable.

[Randwolf]

As soon as I figure out how one denies a concept that is declared as neither believe in and not believe in.

Explain where anyone "denies a concept". One does not have to "deny a concept" in order to not believe it is necessarily true.


Oh, and after you reply to Enmos, answer this question while you're at it:

Do you have to "believe" in ghosts to understand the concept?

[Enmos]

Lier.

What about ghosts? You can't keep up that you are agnostic about them as well.

Do you acknowledge the concept of ghosts ?
If so, do you believe in their existence ?

[S.A.M.]

Explain where anyone "denies a concept". One does not have to "denie a concept" in order to not believe it is necessarily true.


Do you deny that there are ghosts? If so, by ghosts do you mean the bottle of water on the shelf?

[Randwolf]

I do not oppose the notion that there is an ultimate reality of perpetual motion machines.

You don't? Hope you stay out of the science threads, then.

[Randwolf]

If so, by ghosts do you mean the bottle of water on the shelf?

What?

[S.A.M.]

Lier.

What about ghosts? You can't keep up that you are agnostic about them as well.

Do you acknowledge the concept of ghosts ?
If so, do you believe in their existence ?

I'm sure there are ways to discover ghosts as well. If someone tells me there is a ghost in some place, I always go there to check it out. So far, I haven't seen any. Maybe if I saw one I would not recognise it, since my concept of ghosts is semitransparent wispy beings who rattle chains. Perhaps they are merely leftover radiation from spinning electrons and I am looking at the wrong thing? But then, when I say, there are no ghosts, I mean there are no semitransparent wispy beings rattling chains. There may have been emissions of radiation but I missed it, so my conclusions are wrong because my initial concept was in error. Does that clarify what I am asking?

[S.A.M.]

You don't? Hope you stay out of the science threads, then.

Well I base my "knowledge" [about which I claim full ignorance] on the notion that atoms may be a model for miniature perpetual motion machines. Do atoms run out of energy?

[Randwolf]

But then, when I say, there are no ghosts, I mean there are no semitransparent wispy beings rattling chains.

How do you know? Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

[S.A.M.]

How do you know? Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

I agree, which is why I check it out again, but always I am looking for my concept of ghosts. I cannot deny a concept that I do not have.

[Randwolf]

Well I base my "knowledge" [about which I claim full ignorance] on the notion that atoms may be a model for miniature perpetual motion machines. Do atoms run out of energy?

Not so far... Why?

"Probably, because of energy conservation. This is the only thing that we truly know about energy; it is conserved."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-02-27-atom-energy_x.htm

However, we are running into semantics again:


perpetual motion machine

noun
a machine that can continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from some external source; impossible under the law of conservation of energy


ma·chine
–noun

1. an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work: a sewing machine.
2. a mechanical apparatus or contrivance; mechanism.
3. Mechanics. a. a device that transmits or modifies force or motion.
b. Also called simple machine. any of six or more elementary mechanisms, as the lever, wheel and axle, pulley, screw, wedge, and inclined plane.
c. Also called complex machine. a combination of simple machines.

4. Older Use. a. an automobile or airplane.
b. a typewriter.

5. a bicycle or motorcycle.
6. a vending machine: a cigarette machine.
7. any complex agency or operating system: the machine of government.
8. an organized group of persons that conducts or controls the activities of a political party or organization: He heads the Democratic machine in our city.
9. a person or thing that acts in a mechanical or automatic manner: Routine work had turned her into a machine.
10. any of various contrivances, esp. those formerly used in theater, for producing stage effects
11. some agency, personage, incident or other feature introduced for effect into a literary composition.
–verb (used with object) 12. to make, prepare, or finish with a machine or with machine tools.


An atom is not a "machine". Nice try, though.

[S.A.M.]

I said a model, I also said I am illiterate about such concepts. As a nutritionist, physics is not something I have ever been interested in.

But if an atom exists, it is possible to eventually model it.

[Randwolf]

I agree, which is why I check it out again, but always I am looking for my concept of ghosts. I cannot deny a concept that I do not have.

Who is denying a concept? What does this mean? Define "deny" in this context. I am not "denying" the concept of God.

[S.A.M.]

Who is denying a concept? What does this mean? Define "deny" in this context. I am not "denying" the concept of God.

Lets take the analogy of PMM, since you understand it better than I do.

Do you believe in PMM? There is no evidence they exist [forget the atom]

[Randwolf]

Lets take the analogy of PMM, since you understand it better than I do.

Do you believe in PMM? There is no evidence they exist [forget the atom]

How about, let's stay on topic. How about, answer my question.

Who is denying a concept? What does this mean? Define "deny" in this context.

[S.A.M.]

How about, let's stay on topic. How about, answer my question.

Who is denying a concept? What does this mean? Define "deny" in this context.

Thats what I am doing. You denied that there are PMM, because as you pointed out with various definitions [as you did with jihad] you have clearly defined concepts of what you understand a PMM to mean. An atom is not a PMM because it does not fit into your preconceived concept of what a PMM is.

Similarly, if a Hindu came to you and asked, do you believe in brahman [his notion of God] and defined Brahman as the sum total of all the energy in the universe, what would your response be?

[Randwolf]

SAM,

Are you ever going to answer? "Who is denying a concept? What does this mean? Define "deny" in this context."

As to the PMM, I do not believe that they can exist in our universe. There is evidence that they can not exist, "impossible under the law of conservation of energy".

As to God, since God by definition is unknowable, there can not be evidence that God exists, nor can there be evidence that God does not exist.

I can not believe nor disbelieve, hence, I am by your definition "ignostic". Since I am ignostic, therefore I am agnostic. Since I am agnostic, I am not a theist, therefore I am atheist. Why is this such a hard concept for you? None of this "denies the concept of God. If I denied the concept, we couldn't be talking about it in any rational sense, now could we?

[Randwolf]

Similarly, if a Hindu came to you and asked, do you believe in brahman [his notion of God] and defined Brahman as the sum total of all the energy in the universe, what would your response be?

Semantics, again. If someone defines God as equivalent to something contained in this universe, such as the sum total of all energy in the universe, then using the label "God" equates to saying the "sum total of all energy in the universe". By that definition, God is a known quantity, not unknowable.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought we were discussing God in the context of the ultimate creator, omniscient, omnipotent and therefore unknowable.

By the way, who is denying the concept of God?

[Norsefire]

Everything.



[QUOTE]Wait, what I'm saying is illogical?? Seriously? Dude, you're trying to say that there's a 50/50 chance some supernatural deity created the universe! Give me a break. OK, no, let's get real about this: The only reason you give them equal weight is because you have heard of man-made creation myths. If not for those entirely man-made creation myths, you wouldn't be spouting this nonsense.
"Supernatural deity"

I said creator. I never said it would be supernatural or a deity.

But don't you understand WHY I give them equal weight? It's because they are both consisten, they both hold equal ground in terms of lack of evidence for either. Just because our universe is natural doesn't mean the cause was; and, it doesn't mean the cause wasn't. Frankly, it's unknown.

But, because of this lack of evidence for either, it means they hold equal weight.





Another leap of faith. Just because our time didn't exist before our universe did, does not in any way imply that time itself did not exist outside of all of this. We just don't know. But even so, that's not my problem here. My problem is you calling in a creator when we have no evidence whatsoever of anything supernatural anywhere, in any process, regarding anything about this universe. Dude, face it, you're saying it because you think you have to. But you don't. God is totally implausible.

Yes I never said it didn't. I said some physicists believe it didn't.

God in any Abrahamic or religious sense is implausable. However, an intelligent creation of our universe is not.

Likewise as there is no evidence anywhere of nature existing before the universe. And our universe being natural DOESN'T mean the creation was.

Think of it this way: if you built a computer and coded it with certain code in that it then has this code governing the way it performs, you could attribute this "coding" of how it will operate as nature. However, the difficult question is how did nature itself come about?

Because of this, and the lack of any sort of evidence for either natural causation or intelligent creation of our universe, I give equal weight.

[Norsefire]

Prove to me that no *enter name or description of any invisible, non-detectable entity or fairyland creature* exists.

That's your argument? Weak, at best.

That isn't my argument. We are speaking of probability here, not certainties. What is the PROBABILITY a higher intelligence exists? This is the question.

Keep in mind I keep it as blunt as that: an intelligent entity beyond our universe. No details. No religious specifics. None of that. Just what I said.


Now why is THAT impossible? Hell, we can't even say it's unlikely because we don't have enough understanding of the origins of the universe to say what IS likely and what ISN'T.

[JDawg]

But don't you understand WHY I give them equal weight? It's because they are both consisten, they both hold equal ground in terms of lack of evidence for either. Just because our universe is natural doesn't mean the cause was; and, it doesn't mean the cause wasn't. Frankly, it's unknown.


I agree that it's unknown. But I feel that the natural processes of our universe imply natural causes.

[Norsefire]

I agree that it's unknown. But I feel that the natural processes of our universe imply natural causes.

It depends on how you look at the universe. If you look at it as an occurence, then it leans toward natural causation. If you look at it as an object, a computer, something like that, I'd say it leans more toward intelligent design.

Besides, if an intelligent entity were creating a universe, these natural processes may have been "coded in". This is possible. Not literally like a computer, I mean, if you're going to create a computer or machine, you probably could and should create software to help it maintain and operate. Nature could be like software.

[JDawg]

It depends on how you look at the universe. If you look at it as an occurence, then it leans toward natural causation. If you look at it as an object, a computer, something like that, I'd say it leans more toward intelligent design.

But what reason would you have to view it as an object? If anything, our perspective of the universe points to natural occurrence, and therefore natural causation. I see it as a big leap to assume that this natural universe would require intelligent creation.

Besides, if an intelligent entity were creating a universe, these natural processes may have been "coded in". This is possible. Not literally like a computer, I mean, if you're going to create a computer or machine, you probably could and should create software to help it maintain and operate. Nature could be like software.

Well, since we're philosophizing, I can bring M-Theory into the equation, yes? That particular theory points to the fabric of the universe being quite random, which is not in accordance with computers or software.

[Norsefire]

But what reason would you have to view it as an object? If anything, our perspective of the universe points to natural occurrence, and therefore natural causation. I see it as a big leap to assume that this natural universe would require intelligent creation.
What reason would you have to view it as occurence? Or at least, to view the beginning as just an occurence. The beginning goes either way: equal weight.



Well, since we're philosophizing, I can bring M-Theory into the equation, yes? That particular theory points to the fabric of the universe being quite random, which is not in accordance with computers or software.

Quantum physics shows that everything can be predictable.



But we're making a mistake in discussing this: we're discussing the "here and now". It doesn't matter how the universe behaves now. What matters is, how did it get to behave like this? The forces, the atoms, the whatever, have two real questions that must be answered:

1) How did they originate
2) Why do they operate as they do/what ensures they operate as they do

[Enmos]

SAM,

Are you ever going to answer?

Don't hold your breath..

[JDawg]

What reason would you have to view it as occurence? Or at least, to view the beginning as just an occurence. The beginning goes either way: equal weight.


Right now, this is a purely philosophical question, so my position stands: The natural occurrences within the universe imply natural causation. There is no reason to believe the trigger is less natural than than the result.

Quantum physics shows that everything can be predictable.

I thought quantum physics showed that nothing was predictable. Wasn't that Einstein's whole problem with it? "God does not play dice"?

[Norsefire]

Right now, this is a purely philosophical question, so my position stands: The natural occurrences within the universe imply natural causation. There is no reason to believe the trigger is less natural than than the result.

But that view isn't broad enough. As I said it depends on how you view it. Nature can be explained as being the creation by some intelligent entity in order to maintain the functions of the universe.

There is no less reason to believe it was natural than intelligent. My point is, both theories should hold equal ground until more definitive proof can be found.



I thought quantum physics showed that nothing was predictable. Wasn't that Einstein's whole problem with it? "God does not play dice"?

As far as I know, it showed that on a quantum level nothing is predictable. But, on a larger scale things become far more predictable. If you know the temperature, wind speed, velocities from when you throw, different velocities or inconsistencies throughout, material of where you throw, air pressure, the angle from which you threw, position, etc etc etc etc..........you CAN predict, accurately, every time you throw a dice how it will land.

Also, quantum physics give a probability to nearly everthing. For instance, I read that there is a chance (very low, like 1 in trillions maybe or more I'm not sure), that there is a chance according to quantum physics that when you cross the street, you will disintegrate, materialize on mars, and then disintegrate again and materialize on the other side of the street over a period of millions of years.

[JDawg]

But that view isn't broad enough. As I said it depends on how you view it. Nature can be explained as being the creation by some intelligent entity in order to maintain the functions of the universe.

There is no less reason to believe it was natural than intelligent. My point is, both theories should hold equal ground until more definitive proof can be found.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

As far as I know, it showed that on a quantum level nothing is predictable. But, on a larger scale things become far more predictable. If you know the temperature, wind speed, velocities from when you throw, different velocities or inconsistencies throughout, material of where you throw, air pressure, the angle from which you threw, position, etc etc etc etc..........you CAN predict, accurately, every time you throw a dice how it will land.


Right, but that does not change the unpredictable nature of the fabric of the universe. Which means that the large scale things that are predictable are only there by chance. If it were slightly different, then everything else is radically different by extension. I'm not sure I can articulate this properly...I guess the point I'm making is that you can't look at the innards of a computer and say "Wow...this is unpredictable". But you can look at the "innards" of the universe and say "Wow...this is unpredictable".

Also, quantum physics give a probability to nearly everthing. For instance, I read that there is a chance (very low, like 1 in trillions maybe or more I'm not sure), that there is a chance according to quantum physics that when you cross the street, you will disintegrate, materialize on mars, and then disintegrate again and materialize on the other side of the street over a period of millions of years.

I saw that, too. Now, again, since the field is still scientific philosophy, there is no real way of knowing that materializing on Mars suddenly is possible. We don't know that things work that way.

[S.A.M.]

I can not believe nor disbelieve, hence, I am by your definition "ignostic". Since I am ignostic, therefore I am agnostic. Since I am agnostic, I am not a theist, therefore I am atheist. Why is this such a hard concept for you? None of this "denies the concept of God. If I denied the concept, we couldn't be talking about it in any rational sense, now could we?

If you are an atheist you are denying a concept of God, just as you are denying PMM because you have a concept by which you define A "no" is not a "I don't know". Its crystal clear to me. If someone says to me "I don't know" I do not consider it a refusal.

When you say "I don't know" (agnostic) do you actually mean "no" (atheist)?


Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought we were discussing God in the context of the ultimate creator, omniscient, omnipotent and therefore unknowable.



See? You need a context to decide. So in this context, do you deny that God is unknowable? Or not? Or do you just not have an opinion on an unknowable God?

[Randwolf]

You need a context to decide. So in this context, do you deny that God is unknowable? Or not? Or do you just not have an opinion on an unknowable God?


Amazing, SAM, I think we actually agree on something. "You need a context to decide."

Once again, i am not "denying the concept" of a God, I am denying that I can form an opinion on anything that is unknowable by definition. Hence, agnostic, or "ignostic" if you prefer, in this context.


However, I am not clear which context you are referring to in your question. If we're talking about your earlier postulate that God equals "the sum of all the energy in the universe", then yes God is knowable in this case. In fact, God equals zero! (see note) I acknowledge the concept of zero, but I hardly see how defining God as zero is useful.

Now I'm not quite sure how to categorize someone who conceives of a God that equals zero. Theist? Atheist? Nihilist, perhaps? Or some new "ist"? I wil leave it to you to assign a label to this, for it is very confusing to me...


Note:
As famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking said in his 1988 best seller, A Brief History of Time, "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."

[phlogistician]

So you're saying that if you take a vote, ayes and nays and one guy says I dissent, its a nay? Not where I come from. We don't assign new meanings to established ideas.

It's this simple;

"Do you believe in God?"

A, Yes
B, No
C, Don't know

People who answer A, Yes are theists. People who answer B, or C, an not theists. The way we express that semantically, is 'atheist' which means 'not a theist. Agnostics would answer C, 'Don't know' and that means they are not included in the set of people called theists. That makes them 'atheists', ie, the people not included in the 'theist' set.

Can I explain it any simpler for you?

[Randwolf]

It's this simple;

"Do you believe in God?"

A, Yes
B, No
C, Don't know

People who answer A, Yes are theists. People who answer B, or C, an not theists. The way we express that semantically, is 'atheist' which means 'not a theist. Agnostics would answer C, 'Don't know' and that means they are not included in the set of people called theists. That makes them 'atheists', ie, the people not included in the 'theist' set.

Can I explain it any simpler for you?


No, it's not a nay, but it's also not an aye.

My understanding of atheism is that it represents the set of all "not-theists", akin to the set of "not-ayes", including the dissenter, in your analogy.


Yes, SAM, tell us how to explain this in simpler terms... Please?

[EmptyForceOfChi]

It's true
And then the most foolish are atheist, and then theists



Agnostics acknowledge that they do not know. Atheists make claims that they do, for a fact, as a fact, know. Theists act as if they know but some acknowledge that it is still belief.

Actualy Im kind of agnostic (but I dont know for sure im skeptical of that too) and im huge fool, so there.


peace.

[S.A.M.]

So when atheists say "don't know", they mean "no" because I don't know is not yes?

In other words, they cannot distinguish between absence of evidence and evidence of absence.

[Enmos]

So when atheists say "don't know", they mean "no" because I don't know is not yes?

In other words, they cannot distinguish between absence of evidence and evidence of absence.

It's no until yes ;)

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, I get it now, its lack of distinction. Perhaps its generic in atheists?

[Enmos]

Yeah, I get it now, its lack of distinction. Perhaps its generic in atheists?

So with you it's yes until no ?

[S.A.M.]

No, I can distinguish between absence of evidence and evidence of absence, for the latter there is no ambiguity [no, I do not believe you]; for the former, there are assumptions that can be made. If there is only yes and no, it means you know everything there is to know.

[Enmos]

No, I can distinguish between absence of evidence and evidence of absence, for the latter there is no ambiguity [no, I do not believe you]; for the former, there are assumptions that can be made. If there is only yes and no, it means you know everything there is to know.

Is there a difference in how you act towards something that is a 'cannot know' and between something that is a 'no' ?
For the record, I consider there to be evidence of absence, albeit circumstantial.

[S.A.M.]

Is there a difference in how you act towards something that is a 'i don't know' and between something that is a 'no' ?
For the record, I consider there to be evidence of absence, albeit circumstantial.

Of course, if I do not believe in something at all, I do not consider that there are any alternate theories or hypotheses underlying it.

e.g. I do not believe in perpetual motion machines vs I do not know if enough knowledge or tools as yet to decide if pmm are possible.

Which approach will look at any future possibilities?

[Enmos]

Of cou